Build a destination-neutral conversion payload from event ID, value, currency, click IDs, and event name, enabling attribution without network side effects.
Build a destination-neutral conversion payload without network side effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | ||
| eventId | Yes | ||
| clickIds | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| eventName | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does meaningfully state that no network side effects occur. However, it does not disclose what is returned, whether local state changes, or how errors are reported. Some important behavioral traits are still unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler. Both the purpose and the key side-effect constraint are front-loaded and every word contributes to scoping the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has five parameters, a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, so the description must carry more context. The minimal description omits the required eventId semantics, the structure of clickIds, the return value, and when this tool is preferable to send_sale or send_qualified_lead.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and no parameter is explained in the description. The description does not add meaning for eventId, value, clickIds, currency, or eventName beyond their bare schema names, leaving the agent to guess their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('destination-neutral conversion payload'), and explicitly states the tool has no network side effects. This distinguishes it from sending/verifying siblings like send_sale, send_qualified_lead, and verify_conversion_delivery, making the tool's role clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'destination-neutral' and 'without network side effects' imply this is for constructing a payload before sending, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The intended usage is reasonably clear but left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.